>Not necessarily tilted against me, but against the very small businesses as a whole. What I do know, is without employees, our gov't burden is far less proportionally than with a non-family employee. By adding that 1 employee, our costs more than doubled with just a 33% increase in staff. The burden to overcome that initial hurdle of expanding is much higher for the very small business than it is for a mid-size business. The cost curve is much steeper adding the first few employees versus hiring the 10th, 20th, etc. employee.
>
>My analogy is taking the cost of a single-user application and making it multi-user. The initial cost is significantly higher to add the second computer than just the cost of the second computer. You have server software to add and probably a server [3rd computer] because I hate peer-to-peer. You also have network cards and cabling, possibly a hub as well. However, once that is done and absorbed, the cost of adding the 3rd workstation and beyond approaches just the cost of the computer. You only have the additional cabling and network card [very low add on cost].

But how would you fix this? What specific laws or regulations would you get rid of?

>Ahh, sorry. Thank goodness for the 1994 elections that stopped the madness and saved Clinton from himself. yes, I agree the last 6 years have flat lined with respect to tax increase pressures at the federal level.

>Those projects are the result of federal housing projects to centralize the poor and destitute. This is a typical government program full of good intentions gone terribly wrong. Of course most of this disaster has been abandoned by the federal gov't and left to the local communities to deal with. I fully support providing vouchers instead of public housing so these people may CHOOSE where they want to live.

I have serious reservations about how well this would work. Do you think there will be housing they can afford with these vouchers? I don't know of too many businesses who want to invest in building low-income housing. High risk, low reward.

>I also have no sympathy for someone who destroys what they have been given. I believe the saying is you don't burn what you own which goes back to one of the underpinnings of our society - the right to own and acquire private property, but I digress.

I don't think anyone has any sympathy for that, but that does not represent the majority of people on welfare.

>However, in defense of those stuck in these projects who truly try to better themselves, the government is a lousy slum lord and lacks the ability to maintain what they create. There is also NO incentive for any gov't agency to totally solve the problem they are supposed to fix. The benefits are good, the pay is usually good, the hours are good, etc. Who wants to eliminate the need for their agency?

I agree, but I have yet to see a strong case made for vouchers or privitization. In the case of vouchers, I assume you mean that welfare recipients would receive money, and with that money, choose where they want to live. As I noted earlier, I have trouble believing they could find housing. And don't get me started on privitization. < g >

>Here's an example for you. The EPA has created another environmental disaster by forcing the petroleum industry to put MTBE in gasoline. A formulation they knew full well did not work based on pilot testing in Phoenix and other cities in the early 90s but proceded anyway. Not only does it not reduce exhaust emissions, it has polluted much of our drinking water sources [surface and ground] with a chemical that is water soluble and not biodegradable. What has EPA done? Assembled a panel to investigate what is already known. Carol Browner does not want to admit EPA made a horrendous mistake. She will leave that to the next administration.

How these things happen is beyond me. But there are cases like this in the private sector as well. Who has not worked for a company that does some amazingly stupid things? And despite its problems, where would we be without the EPA or FDA? Call me a cynic, but I don't trust business to regulate itself.

>BTW, with respect to gov't irresponsibility I mentioned above, some of the worst superfund sites are federal facilities [e.g., military bases, etc.]. Why? Because the US Government does not take enforcement actions against itself. Conflict of interest. < g >

I agree.